By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Saturday night, Donald Trump took to social media demanding Attorney General Pam Bondi expedite the prosecution of his political adversaries, including James Comey, Adam Schiff, and Letitia James. This public directive caught many senior officials within the Justice Department and White House off guard, with some perceiving it as a mistakenly public private message. Despite the confusion, the administration opted to treat the post as a formal demand, consistent with Trump’s past actions of treating law enforcement as an extension of his political will, culminating in appointing Lindsey Halligan as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Trump later followed up with a post praising Bondi despite his initial frustration.
Read the original article here
Trump Officials Didn’t Know If His Order To Prosecute Foes Was Meant To Be Secret is a fascinating question, really. It touches on a core issue: the nature of Trump’s actions and the reactions of those around him. The consensus seems to be a mix of confusion, resignation, and, frankly, a level of disbelief. It’s a perfect storm of political theater, legal implications, and genuine uncertainty about what’s happening.
The first point to consider is that Trump is known for openly advocating revenge and retaliatory action. This behavior alone creates a significant case for impeachment. Many view Trump’s actions as far worse than Watergate. There’s a prevailing sense that things are likely to deteriorate further. It’s a grim prediction, but it stems from an observation about the former president’s behavior.
One of the most common concerns raised revolves around Trump’s cognitive abilities. There’s talk of “age-related cognitive decline,” with some suggesting that this is already quite visible. This decline leads to the possibility of bizarre, seemingly accidental, social media postings, blurring the lines between intention and error. It fuels speculation that the former president’s activities are being managed, curated by handlers, to avoid further missteps. The “Pam” post is a perfect example of this type of error.
A significant part of the conversation focuses on the media’s role. The discussion is whether media outlets were downplaying or normalizing Trump’s actions. Some argue the media should be held accountable for their reporting on Trump. The comparison to historical events is alarming, drawing parallels to figures like Julius Streicher.
The legal aspects are also central. Ordering political prosecutions is a blatant abuse of power. Whether the order was meant to be secret or not becomes almost a moot point, because the underlying action is inherently wrong. Some commentators argue that even if the order was intended to be kept quiet, the fact that it was made at all represents an impeachable offense. The former president’s complete lack of regard for the boundaries of his position is clear.
The level of incompetence, perceived or real, adds another layer of complexity. Some speculate that sheer incompetence might inadvertently save the country from further damage. The concern that advisors were even unsure whether to make such orders public or keep them secret highlights the chaotic nature of the inner circle.
Ultimately, the question of secrecy seems almost secondary. Trump’s actions are so open and bold, it’s hard to imagine him aiming for secrecy. His base understands what he wants, and the message gets across. It is also argued that anything he does is immediately normalized by his supporters.
The discussion often comes down to two competing ideas: that Trump may not understand the implications of his actions, and that those around him enable and accept those actions. This results in a cycle of shocking behavior, denial, and normalization that characterizes Trump’s time in office. In this framework, it’s not about whether the order was secret, but about the fundamental corruption of power.